ASTRO: Reprocessed M81

I really need to reshoot this one on a good night when I can use 1x1
binning to advantage. Those nights are rare and I'd need two to get
enough data. So this reprocess of an image from over 2 years ago will
have to do. The original had purple arms but any attempt to fix that
just made things worse. I didn't know enough about color balance at the
time to fix it. I started from scratch for this version. Colors seem
far more real to me. Though I ended up with less blue arms than I
usually see this is what I'm getting so going with it. Think I decided
to blue up the arms the first time and that's what got me into trouble.
Holmberg IX was isolated during the processing and processed
separately. It's true relative brightness is much less than shown.
Call it artistic license or cheating whichever you prefer. Again, I
used the old 5' subs

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=10x5' RGB=3x5', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

In article .com,
Rick Johnson wrote:

I really need to reshoot this one on a good night when I can use 1x1
binning to advantage. Those nights are rare and I'd need two to get
enough data. So this reprocess of an image from over 2 years ago will
have to do. The original had purple arms but any attempt to fix that
just made things worse. I didn't know enough about color balance at the
time to fix it. I started from scratch for this version. Colors seem
far more real to me. Though I ended up with less blue arms than I
usually see this is what I'm getting so going with it. Think I decided
to blue up the arms the first time and that's what got me into trouble.
Holmberg IX was isolated during the processing and processed
separately. It's true relative brightness is much less than shown.
Call it artistic license or cheating whichever you prefer. Again, I
used the old 5' subs

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=10x5' RGB=3x5', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick

Hi Rick;

Very nice M81.

Was this binned 2x2 or 3x3 or what exactly?

Thanks in advance..

Milton Aupperle
http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImages/AstroIndex.html

Milton Aupperle wrote:

In article .com,
Rick Johnson wrote:


I really need to reshoot this one on a good night when I can use 1x1
binning to advantage. Those nights are rare and I'd need two to get
enough data. So this reprocess of an image from over 2 years ago will
have to do. The original had purple arms but any attempt to fix that
just made things worse. I didn't know enough about color balance at the
time to fix it. I started from scratch for this version. Colors seem
far more real to me. Though I ended up with less blue arms than I
usually see this is what I'm getting so going with it. Think I decided
to blue up the arms the first time and that's what got me into trouble.
Holmberg IX was isolated during the processing and processed
separately. It's true relative brightness is much less than shown.
Call it artistic license or cheating whichever you prefer. Again, I
used the old 5' subs

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=10x5' RGB=3x5', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick


Hi Rick;

Very nice M81.

Was this binned 2x2 or 3x3 or what exactly?

Thanks in advance..

Milton Aupperle
http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImages/AstroIndex.html


Everything I do is binned 2x2 unless I state otherwise. That gives a 1"
pixel. 3x3 is a kludge on my camera and not really useful for detail as
the well depth doesn't change from 2x2 binning. Result is a loss of
dynamic range that really hurts the image. I may reduce an image to
that size but always take at 2x2 even if I plan to reduce it later due
to the loss of dynamic range. This also causes bright stars to bloom
even though it is an ABG camera. Another reason to avoid it.

The 11K is a 4002x2672 so when yo see a 2004x1336 image like this one
you know it was 2x2.

If I crop or resize I state that.

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Very good image Rick. Could maybe use a bit more exposure time, but the
detail is certainly there.

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ster.com...
I really need to reshoot this one on a good night when I can use 1x1
binning to advantage. Those nights are rare and I'd need two to get
enough data. So this reprocess of an image from over 2 years ago will
have to do. The original had purple arms but any attempt to fix that
just made things worse. I didn't know enough about color balance at the
time to fix it. I started from scratch for this version. Colors seem
far more real to me. Though I ended up with less blue arms than I
usually see this is what I'm getting so going with it. Think I decided
to blue up the arms the first time and that's what got me into trouble.
Holmberg IX was isolated during the processing and processed
separately. It's true relative brightness is much less than shown.
Call it artistic license or cheating whichever you prefer. Again, I
used the old 5' subs

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=10x5' RGB=3x5', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

That's the 5 minute subs. Soon after taking this one I gave up on them.
I imaged something using 2 hours of 5 minute subs right after this
that was still noisier than I wanted. I retook it using only 4 10
minute subs with only a fraction the total noise. Seems in my dark
skies the system noise in a 5 minute shot when you run the math is about
30%. It just won't go away. Even at 10 minutes it is high but only
needing 4 frames I can make it work. Calculator says I need 45 minute
subs for a below 5% level. That's in winter with ice screwing up my
background count. Without it these calculators say I need up to 2 hours
for a 2% background noise level. No way I can keep the focus that long
even with temperature compensation. Then there's the zillion satellites
I'd have. I have one Arp that is impossible to process with all the
birds flying through it. Every frame as 5 or 6, some going right
through the galaxy. Seems its declination is dead center in the
geostationary belt from my latitude. So not only are there lots of
them, they are moving only due to the earth's rotation so stay on one
pixel far longer than a typical bird does. So they give new meaning to
"big and bright".

Rick

Stefan Lilge wrote:
Very good image Rick. Could maybe use a bit more exposure time, but the
detail is certainly there.

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ster.com...
I really need to reshoot this one on a good night when I can use 1x1
binning to advantage. Those nights are rare and I'd need two to get
enough data. So this reprocess of an image from over 2 years ago will
have to do. The original had purple arms but any attempt to fix that
just made things worse. I didn't know enough about color balance at the
time to fix it. I started from scratch for this version. Colors seem
far more real to me. Though I ended up with less blue arms than I
usually see this is what I'm getting so going with it. Think I decided
to blue up the arms the first time and that's what got me into trouble.
Holmberg IX was isolated during the processing and processed
separately. It's true relative brightness is much less than shown.
Call it artistic license or cheating whichever you prefer. Again, I
used the old 5' subs

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=10x5' RGB=3x5', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".